The US's "mini-me" - Australia

Ten years ago, I filmed secretly in East Timor, a small country in south-east Asia whose brutal occupation was largely unknown to the outside world. The title of the film, Death of a Nation, was hardly an exaggeration. The Suharto military dictatorship in Indonesia, having invaded the Portuguese colony in 1975, caused the death of "at least" 200,000 East Timorese, according to a study by the foreign affairs committee of the Australian parliament. This represented a third of the population; proportionally, it was an act of genocide greater than the Jewish Holocaust. The governments of the United States, Britain and Australia were not only forewarned, but supported and equipped the invaders. Henry Kissinger personally gave General Suharto the go-ahead.

Click to expand...

Quote

For me, the most telling and shocking sequence in Death of a Nation had been filmed five years earlier on board an Australian air force plane. A party was in progress; champagne corks popped and there was much false laughter as two fawning men in suits toasted each other. One was Gareth Evans, then Australia's foreign minister. The other was Ali Alatas, his Indonesian equivalent and Suharto's mouthpiece. "This is an historically unique moment," waffled Evans, "that is truly, uniquely historical." Flying over the Timor Sea, they had just signed the Timor Gap Treaty, which allowed Australian and other foreign companies to exploit the seabed belonging to the land of black crosses and to their victims. The ultimate prize, as Evans put it, could be "zillions" of dollars.

Click to expand...

Quote

For more than 60 years, Australia's relations with its tiny, vulnerable neighbour have been distinguished by enduring betrayal, bullying and greed, the antithesis of the self-adulating Australian myth of "fair go". During the Second World War, more than 40,000 East Timorese were slaughtered by the Japanese for siding with and protecting Australian commandos, after the Australians suddenly withdrew. When, in the 1970s, General Suharto sought Australia's tacit approval of his long-planned invasion and annexation of Portuguese East Timor, he got it; the East Timorese were, it was argued in Canberra, too poor for a "viable" independence - forget the "zillions" of dollars in potential oil revenue.

Click to expand...

Quote

According to international law, the sea boundary between countries close to each other is the median line, or halfway point. The Howard government rejects this, demanding that the old border, agreed illegally with Suharto, should apply. In keeping with the duties and ethics of a Bush-appointed sheriff, Howard has refused to recognise the jurisdiction of both the International Court of Justice and the Tribunal for the Law of the Sea. Instead, Australia today occupies the East Timorese seabed and is poised to rob the tiny nation of roughly $30bn over the next three decades. With the Australian senate's recent approval of a new treaty, Howard's and Downer's tactic is to pressure the East Timorese on the seabed issue by constantly threatening to pull out of negotiations, thus denying a stricken people money they urgently need for reconstruction. In this way, East Timor is proclaimed a "failed state" and becomes dependent on and controlled by Canberra.

Howard is doing much the same in Iraq. Of the token hangers-on who make up the Anglo-American "coalition of the willing", Spain, Honduras, Poland and the Netherlands are about to recall their troops. Only Australia remains true to the uber-sheriff in Washington. This begs the question: when will decent Australians again make their voices heard?

Click to expand...

Last month an Aussie navel vessel was docked in Wellington, New Zealand. Overnight, protesters used an inflatable to come along-side, and painted in very large letters "John Howard, US bootlicker" along the side.

Last month an Aussie navel vessel was docked in Wellington, New Zealand. Overnight, protesters used an inflatable to come along-side, and painted in very large letters "John Howard, US bootlicker" along the side.

Click to expand...

Sounds like an Australian Navy captain that should be brought up on dereliction of duty charges under a court martial. Castastrophic absence of security.

Castatrophic or Catastrophic? Either way, no people or animals were hurt during this protest, so your choice of word seems a bit over the top.

Click to expand...

Erp. Fingers had a mind of their own. Thanks for alerting the spelling mistake.

Catastrophic.

Either way, a Navy captain is responsible for the safety of his ship and crew. Allowing people near your ship to do things to your ship that you do not know about is dereliction of duty. The captain is supposed to be cognizant of anything that approaches his ship. Thats what security is all about. When its docked, then the security duty goes to the port officials where its berthed.

Hurt animals or people or not, doesn't matter. He allowed people to get close to his ship to do some 'damage'.

MacRumors attracts a broad audience
of both consumers and professionals interested in
the latest technologies and products. We also boast an active community focused on
purchasing decisions and technical aspects of the iPhone, iPod, iPad, and Mac platforms.